Hi everyone , it’s been a long draining day and I’m gutted to say my visa application was denied and I have not been recommended for a waiver of ineligibility

it’s not until I returned home I discovered you could even get a waiver of ineligibility . I’m baffled as to why I wasn’t recommend and wondering if anybody could shed any light

for context , 15 years ago I was cautioned for the cultivation of one Cannabis plant . I was not taken to court , did not serve prison time and this is the only one offence on my record .

just wondering if it’s worth applying again ? I have invested a lot in this emotionally and financially and my boy is going to be gutted when I have to tell him we are not going to Disney

any help appreciated, thanks

A waiver is only available for 30g or less of marijuana, presumably if you had an entire plant you don't qualify for that. But what was the exact reason given for the denial?

It might be worth a consultation with a good immigration lawyer, but if it's just for a holiday then in all honesty it may be easier to do Disneyland Paris instead.

Good luck.

thanks for the reply . That explains why I wasn’t recommended then . I mean it was small and not in full bud but there was probably over 30 g there , however no weight was recorded.

looks like I’m permanently banned from entering the United States . Absolutely gutted . Still paying for that silly mistake 15 years later ! If only I had known is sooner , could have saved myself a lot of heartache not to mention money

The less than 30 grams exception applies to removability, not inadmissibility. Also, it is not a waiver, rather it eliminates the offense as a ground of removability. The 30 grams also applies to 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility for immigrant status. So, 30 grams does not enter into OP’s situation.

It was within the sound discretion of the ConOff to determine that OP did not satisfy the Hranka issues.

That must be what I was thinking of. But I'm guessing having an entire plant (which implies possible distribution…..or at the very least a lot bigger amount than just a couple of joints worth) will have been a factor anyway.

so guys , is it worth having another crack ? Clearly states on my ACRO it was cultivation of
one plant - I was not cautioned for intent to supply

or is a total no go no point in even trying ? Thanks

A plant is different though, other countries (Canada for example) would certainly be an issue too, regardless of intent to supply or not.

Your call, but I suspect it would be money down the drain. A different interviewing officer isn’t likely to result in a different outcome, and as I said above, if it’s just for a holiday it would be easier and cheaper to just go to go to a different Disney.

If you really wanted to pursue it maybe a one time consult with an attorney would be a good idea?

Your refusal probably has a number letter combination which corresponds to the statutory provision underlying the refusal. Probably 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) or 212(a)(2)(C). Thé choice tells you a lot. The former section requires a specific conviction while the later only requires “reason to believe.”

Hi , it says crime of moral turpitude 212 (a)(2)(A)(i)(l)

Violation or conspiracy to violate laws and laws or regulations relating to controlled substances 212 (a)(2)(A) (ll)

I can see it looks bad of course , it was such a stupid situation . My friend gave me a little plant , I was young and silly It was never my intention to start dealing

They obviously think I was looking to distribute it 😭 which is where the moral turpitude thing come in

absolutely gutted !!

BTW, the exact date of the caution is important.

15/10/2009

It is not uncommon for posters in these forums to blithely ignore the nature of UK Simple Caution issued after July 2008. (Which is not simple but fairly complicated).

The initial Home Office guidance from 2008 can be found here. Of interest is the explanation of the word simple. The current Home Office guidance was issued in 2015 and can be found here. The Simple Caution is a clear and unequivocal admission of the offense including an explanation of the offense. Of particular interest is paragraph 76 on page 16 - the procedure for accepting a caution includes a clear warning that countries other than the UK may use the caution to deny a visa.

So, accepting a caution is voluntary. Before accepting a caution, the person must be offered the advice of counsel.

A quirk arising from the fact that a caution is not a conviction, but rather is an admission: the petty offense exception for CIMT often becomes unavailable. Part of the petty offense exception is based upon the maximum sentence that could be imposed. This is often determined by the jurisdiction in which the matter is tried. So, if tried in Magistrates Court, petty offense can apply. If tried in Crown Court, the statutory limit applies. So, when a matter is disposed of by an admission of fact, it will be treated as if it could have gone to crown court.

The question of whether or not a criminal offense is a CIMT is answered by what is called the “categorical” approach. This is determined by examination of the legal provision and not the individual facts or the perpetrator. When I was in practice, I recall a discussion with a ConOff regarding whether a particular offense was a CIMT or not. Client had had a fender bender while driving his employer’s truck. Employer had no insurance. Under Korean law, that is considered hit and run. Hit and run is a CIMT. In the US that would not be considered hit and run. The ConOff informed me that they had numerous advisory opinions from state department that it was a CIMT. (Under then existing procedures, waiver were handled by overseas offices of former INS. The nearest INS office was down the hall in the embassy and took five days to process).

I’m willing to bet that LND has a list of offenses under UK law that are CIMT. You state you accepted a caution for “cultivation.”

The standards for recommendation of the 212(d)(3) waiver can be found in the Foreign Affairs Manual at this link.

One cannot really know why the ConOff declined to recommend a waiver. That said, the tone of your post here suggests that, even with the passage of time, you demonstrate an attitude inconsistent with rehabilitation. Again, I don’t know why, but there is something that made the ConOff to not like you.

Genuinely could not regret the incident more . It was now over 15 years ago , i’m now a totally different person and deeply regret my actions all those years ago

on reflection , I don’t think I said enough . In fact I said very little about about my regrets and my rehabilitation

I’ve now taken advice from an immigration lawyer who is going to
advise me going forward and hopefully help out together another application . Thank you for all your reply’s